About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
relationships in the pentagon in his ability to do the job. >> if i were chuck hagel i'd go to the president and say do you still have confidence in me? do you think i could do the job. >> you would offer to potentially withdraw? >> you've got to if you think you're not going to be effective because of what's happened. >> the whole issue isn't getting confirmed. it's whether he'll have political capital as defense secretary to work with the congress and generals in a meaningful way. >>> coming up next, part of a one on one discussion i had with a man who has had just about every powerful position in washington other than the presidency, defense secretary leon panetta on his four decades in washington, the morality of drone strikes and advice he has for president obama. >>> plus the pack men, karl rove's new plan to pour cold water on the tea party and keep senate seats in the republican column. today's politics planner, as you can see, former president clinton will be speaking at ed koch's funeral, president obama is off to minneapolis and chris christie hits letterman. [ male announcer ] le
conference here at the pentagon briefing room. there are moments when i thought i was part of the last act of an italian opera. you're not sure exactly when it would end, and when the fat lady would sing. >> for now the only certainty is much more congressional uncertainty. joy, does leon panetta need a shirt that says "i survived a chuck hagel filibuster and all i got was this lousy t-shirt?" just when he thinks it can't get worse, it's actually seemingly gotten worse. >> this is insane. i mean, last night i went through, and i was looking at the george w. bush cabinet nominations. none of which were filibustered. just for fun. just because i knew we were talking about it. his second term cabinet nominations, the majority went through by voice vote. they didn't even bother to take a poll of the senate. people like michael mukaze sailed through and alberto gonzalez, who went to the bedside of john ashcroft when he was the chief guy to demand that this sick man, this man who was on his bed barely lucid sign off on wiarrantless wiretapping. we had bin laden -- not filibuster. i mean, the bot
at the department of defense. let's ask the military. >> ask you for an update on pentagon drone operations. >> probably not. >> well, let's hear what you have to say when i ask the question. >> okay. >> it has now been widely acknowledged that the u.s. military earlier this year, the military, pentagon, flew drone operations over pakistan's border region in cooperation with the pakistanis to collect reconnaissance information and show it to them. can you talk about why the u.s. military is now flying drone operations or did fly drone operations over pakistan? >> i can't. i know you say it's widely acknowledged. i don't know how widely anything has been acknowledged on that count. i don't think it's appropriate for me at this podium to discuss operations that may or may not be taking place. >> what concerns do you have that these u.s. government drone strikes in pakistan may be backfiring now and simply creating more enemies of the united states? >> i refer your questions to other people. that's not something we speak to or are involved in. >> who would you refer them to, jeff? where should
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
the pentagon. it has to do with he's been mean to president bush. he's been mean to john mccain. this process has said more about republicans than quite franklin it has said about chuck -- >> what about this issue of him -- is he going to be in charge of the pentagon? >> i think that is going to be the test for chuck hagel when he is sworn in fairly quickly and fairly soon as the next defense secretary. and i think there's no doubt he's going to go into that building and he'll take strong command of it. and that's what is going to be remembered. >> that is the toughest job in washington for the best and most qualified person and this process has weakened him, and his personality is probably not suited for this job. i can assure you of one thing. robert gibbs is going to be very happy he's not standing at that press podium the first time chuck hagel opines about the president's foreign policy and their disagreements on it. >> i can tell you there were a lot of reporters that were answering to be on this trip to brussels. >> the reasons that are being shown to hold up this nomination, it's not
them to be moved from the cia back to the pentagon. but the fact is that there has been something like a 700% increase in the use of drones under president obama as compared to george w. bush. >> and andrea, as you know, from your sources at the agency and i know from my sources not only from the agency but in the entire intelligence community when barack obama came into office, they specifically said, they wanted to ramp up drone operations. and they wanted there to be a side-by-side comparison of how many strikes bush did versus how many strikes they did. for brennan to say that he wants to pull back on drone strikes, that's just -- that's just not accurate. and that's not what's been happening since january 20th, 2009. you can go back. and when the history is written, you will go back to january 20th, 2009, and see a very deliberate -- >> executive orders. >> executive orders. and again, i think most americans probably support this policy. so it's not like i'm talking about anything that's going to be scandalous. most people will support the president doing this. but it obviously ca
, the pentagon would take the brunt of that blow with the rest of the pain coming to domestic programs. >> our economy right now is headed in the right direction. and it will stay that way as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of washington. so let's keep on chipping away at this problem together, as democrats and republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead. >> the president's called for a fix of short-term spending cuts and tax reform hit a brick on capitol hill. politico reporting that obama's plan dead on arrival, and house speaker john boehner was speaking on capitol hill, right now saying that his party plans to stand with the american people and we want to show you exactly what he had to say about that yesterday. >> on two occasions has passed a plan to replace the sequester. it's time for the senate democrats to do that work. it's time for the president to offer his ideas about how to replace the sequester. >> his first answer to everything is new taxes. and when you think about it, wh
to overthrow the assad regime. the plan had received support from the pentagon, the cia, secretary clinton. but ultimately it was the white house that turned down the idea. >> both of you agreed with petraeus and clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in syria, is that correct? >> that was our position. i do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were reversed here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal. i supported his decision in the end. but the answer to your question is yes. >> for both of you? >> yes. >> "the wall street journal" says the white house was concerned about which rebels could be trusted with arms. was also worried about the risk of drawing the united states into another military conflict. but it was questions over benghazi that led to the most heated moments with secretary panetta and general dempsey defending the administration's response to the deadly raid on the u.s. consulate. >> for you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response, our posture was not there because w
in the pentagon budget, we put $300 billion into jobs, which saves teachers, which invests in school frukt, a and helps schools. >> congressman, mr. ryan and mr. mcconnell at the beginning of this year said quite clearly the revenues issue is now closed. it's off the table. there are no more discussions on revenues. >> so they would rather cut home heating oil for seniors -- >> yes. >> they'd rather cut women and infants and children. >> yes. >> food grams. >> yes. >> they'd rather cut things like that than ask rich people for more money? >> what about meals on wheels, head start. that's what they'd like to cut, this is correct. >> so it's brutal. it's cruel. and it will cause layoffs and we will see economic growth decline, and they're willing to do this just to protect the wealthiest few. and i think it's a moral outrage. i think americans of all stripes ought to stand up and say no. and this is why the progressive caucus members have offered the balancing act. because, you know, there is a way forward. there is a way to address budgetary and gdeficit issues ad invest in our economy. the
after appealing "don't ask, don't tell," the pentagon plans to extend some military benefits to same sex partners. exactly which has not been decided r decided, but they could include some health and welfare programs. >>> boy scouts of america announce a delay today. they will need more time to does whether or not to lift the ban on gay leader respect and scouts. the organization said it would take action at its national meeting in may.the organization take action at its national meeting in may. >>> and tulane university admitting to falsifying their reports. >>> gun control advocates had a lot of star power today on capitol hill. celebrities like tony bennett, chris rock and amanda pete all speaking up against the mars against illegal gun campaign. >> my sister practiced stern al medicine at an innercity hospital in north philadelphia. they see about 500 gunshot wound victims per year. that's one trauma center just in the neighborhood of north philly. and that doesn't take into account mortalities. despite these numbers, some people believe my sister should be prohibited from asking her
at the pentagon. and by eric holder today. but eric holder seemed to be either conflating or combining imminent threat with ongoing threat. tell me about the memo itself. >> that is exactly the rub. they have -- it is certainly true that administration officials, all those you mentioned, have articulated that it is the bottom administration policy that targeted killings of americans who are associated with al qaeda are lawful and constitutional under certain conditions, and the first concern is that the individual poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the united states. in other words, capture is not feasible, and the operation is done according to law or principles. what this memo does, which is not something that has been public, is flesh that out and provide details about what they mean by that, and one of those striking points is when they get to defining imminent threat. they talk about a broader -- the memo explicitly says that they have intelligence that the targeted individual is involved in an active plot against the united states. what they mean is that this individual
on defense. the pentagon's top brass pushed back on questions about the military response in benghazi. >> are you surprised that the president of the united states never called you secretary panetta, and says how is it going? >> you know, normally in these situations -- >> did he know the level of threat that -- >> let me finish the answer. we were deploying the forces. he knew we were deploying the forces. he was being kept -- >> i hate to intript you, but i have limited time. we didn't deploy any forces. >> it was over by the time -- >> mr. secretary, you didn't know how long the attack would last. did you ever call him and say, mr. president, it looks like we don't have anything to get there any time soon? >> the event was over before -- >> it lasted almost eight hours, and my question to you is during that eight-hour period did the president show any curiosity about how is this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? did he ever make that phone call? >> look, there is no question in my mind the president of the united states was concerned about american lives.
in the private sector, including serving on the board of a major contractor with the pentagon. mr. gates gave speeches, lots of them, for which he was paid plenty. but when bob gates testified before the senate, the subject of his private sector earnings never came up. after five hours of non-confrontational questions, the committee volt ford him unanimously. and then when it went to the full senate they confirmed him 95-2. the nominee before, that remember this guy? donald rumsfeld, 2001. donald rumsfeld, of course, had made zillions in the private sector. he sat on the board of a company that was believed to have won a giant contract to help north korea build nuclear reactors. but when donald rumsfeld testified before the senate, they didn't ask about the stock that he held or his roles in international business. they didn't even ask about the north korean reactors. they recommended his nomination to the full senate where he was confirmed in another vote of 95-2. so if history has anything to say about it, then what's happening to chuck hagel right now is not at all normal. it is not the re
to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from george w. bush. one democratic official working on the hagel nomination told politico, quote, what they're asking is unprecedented, and it's clear that it's information that he's unable to provide. hagel says he can't provide it because it would violate confidentiality of the boards that he serves on. of course, critics say this is about more than incomplete financial records. so why are republicans really holding up hagel's nomination? aaron david miller is vice president for new initiatives at the woodrow wilson center. he has served as an adviser on the middle east to both democratic and republican secretaries of state. and joe klein is a columnist for "time" magazine. gentlemen, buzz feed pointed
the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
to oppose his nominees for top cabinet slots at the pentagon and cia. republican senator lindsey graham threatened to hold up those picks until the white house delivers more information about the attacks in benghazi. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the cia directorship, hagel to be confirmed as secretary of defense until the white house gives us an accounting, did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the libyan government to help these folks? what did the president do? yes, i'm going to ask my colleagues just like they did with john bolton, joe biden said, no confirmation without information. no confirmation without information. >> you are saying that you are going to block the nominations -- you're going to block them from coming to a vote until you get an answer? >> yes. >> now, john mccain has already think that he doesn't think republicans ought to filibuster this. what will you do? you're just going to put a hold on it? >> yeah, i'm not filibustering. this is a national security failure of monumental proportions, and i'm not going to st
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)